In the last few weeks we have been talking about equality a lot. The reason for that is because both feminists and tradcons have finally admitted to being against it. In both cases, they have explicitly admitted to being against actual equality such as equality before the law and equality of opportunity. Neither group is talking about the cases where the term, equality, gets bastardized and redefined into something else (such as what feminists commonly do with the term). It’s surprising that both groups have admitted to being against equality at roughly the same time, but it proves an important point, that both groups are against actual equality for similar reasons.

Louise Pennington, a feminist, said that “equality is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent the true liberation of women“. In other words, equality is a smokescreen to benefit men. While the tradcons and Suzanne Venker wouldn’t talk about the “true liberation of women”, it’s clear from their writings that they would otherwise agree that equality is a smokescreen to benefit men. (In part this is because, actual equality might deny women chumps to marry and enslave.)

Many would argue women had the better end of the deal! It’s hard to claim women were oppressed in a nation in which men were expected to stand up when a lady enters the room or to lay down their lives to spare women life. When the Titanic went down in 1912, its sinking took 1,450 lives. Only 103 were women. One-hundred three.

Compare that with last year’s wrecked cruise line, the Costa Concordia. It resulted in fewer deaths, but there was another significant difference. “There was no ‘women and children first’ policy. There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboats. It was disgusting,” said passenger Sandra Rogers, 62.

This is what it comes down to. Actual equality does not benefit women, and talking about equality is getting them nowhere, so a wide range of misandrist voices are now openly against it. However, actual equality benefits men. Equality before the law means that women can’t go around making false rape or false abuse charges and expect to get away with it. Equality of opportunity means that women actually have to produce and not be a leech off men. A job market with equality of opportunity would end up looking a lot like the tech industry does now with predominately male employment with a disproportionately high number of unmarried men because men are on average better qualified for most jobs. Women would be left out in the cold because they couldn’t compete for jobs, and they couldn’t get married unless they worked to show that they could add to a man’s life.

Everyone but MRAs are now against equality not because it’s a plot to benefit men, but because equality means that women lose their special privileges.

When you start looking at gynocentrism fully and how men fit into that paradigm, you very quickly discover that the model of masculinity prescribed to by tradcons and PUAs (feminists manage the seemingly impossible and adhere to it and condemn it simultaneously), you very quickly discover that conventional notions of masculinity are its foundations and its very oxygen. Without men acting as a slave class, the gynocentric paradigm both collapses like a house of cards and dies of starvation.

What follows though is something I have been mocked for stating repeatedly on here, including by you.

The question which the manosphere refuses to even look at (the reasons for I will address later) is one of how men are conditioned into being said perpetual slave class.

As Tosh, Dudink and Hagemann have written, men are only valued for their ability to provide, ability to protect and their sexual prowess (while the first 2 are pretty self evident, I can if need be go into the way gynocentric eugenics drives the later).

So logically the question must be asked- how do you reduce someone to valuing themselves solely in terms of their utility? The answer is you dehumanise them – this leads me to where the manosphere are more a part of the problem than part of the solution.

The way we dehumanise men is through a mix of machismo and stoicism. Men are shamed through emasculation if they show vulnerability, if they fail to be the best providers, if they don’t have enough notches in the belt earlier in life or if they haven’t “settled down” later on in life. Men are shamed mostly though if they fail at any of the above and dare to show emotion over it.

However it gets better as such dehumanisation is actually glorified. Such brutal dehumanisation becomes the equivalent of a gold plated turd, where men who completely devalue their sexuality are glorified, men who somehow miraculously manage to avoid trauma or get good at hiding its effects are glorified as “conquerors” and men who brutally survive the climb to the top over the corpses of the casualties of attrition are held up as a model of what men should be (self interested and completely disconnected from any sense of brotherhood). Of course the irony of this is that despite believing we are conquerors, such a notion is nothing more than a metaphorical slave collar which conquers us.

The message is clear – be a good little slave and you’ll be rewarded; refuse to submit and we will relentlessly break you until you do.

The flaw the gameosphere suffers from, and which the manosphere suffers from, is that they are blind to the glorified lies.

Chastity for example is a choice for a man to value their sexuality and to save it for one person – arguably just as valid a choice as being heavily sexually active. Furthermore it is arguably a healthier choice as it ties our sexuality in to our humanity, rather than our utility and gynocentric eugenics.

Trauma for example is a natural part of the human condition and when it happens, it should be dealt with in a way which properly addresses it and allows us to heal. Recognition of the affects of such trauma by men should be seen solely as a sign that they are human and need support to heal from it to get back on their feet.

Destitution for example, happens to men. Not all men are built to make the climb to the top – between trauma and natural attributes, some men are going to be victims of attrition. Such a scenario however is far more a reflection on the nature of society than it is on a person’s “failings as a man”.

Yet as long as we refuse to acknowledge these things in society and in the manosphere at large, we continue to perpetuate the phenomenon of men being a perpetual slave class. Simply refusing to be the provider & protector is insufficient – what is required is nothing less than a rejection of every single social factor which conditions us to prescribe to those roles.

What needs to happen is for men to say to themselves “if I take away my role as provider, my role as protector, and however many notches on the belt I do or do not have, who am I?” Likewise, society must be demanded to value men on those grounds – the grounds of their humanity rather than their utility.

I can envisage one possible and valid counterpoint – what about if you have a highly skilled tradesman who is highly successful, aren’t you saying he should reject his professional role completely? The answer to that requires a caveat – is said man passionate about his work beyond the pay packet it brings home?

If the answer is no and there is no authentic passion there, then he should at the very least reconsider it. However if the answer is yes, then n it comes down to a paradigm shift – where the work becomes about the passion rather than the pay packet; where he is admired for his artistry rather than how much money he’s raking in from it.

Such a paradigm is alien, frightening, and to many men, effeminate. However if we are truly to create a world where men are regarded as human beings rather than slaves, it is our only valid course of action.

The problem is that you can never make two different things equal; apples and oranges will always have their separate places. Men should be legally and socially above women, for the simple fact that it’s in our nature to care for and protect women, while women only care for and protect children.

Not to mention that men are smarter, harder working, and fairer on average.

On the contrary, that’s a gynocentric myth used to facilitate male disposability. Furthermore the ideological reasoning behind it stopped being justifiable with the birth of modern medicine and technology and with both, dramatically lower maternal mortality rates, dramaticallly lower occupational mortality rates in many fields and double the average life expectancy.

The fact is your entire argument is based on a paradigm required in a society where the average live expectancy was around 40, where a woman needed to pump out 5-10 kids just to have 1 or 2 actually make it adulthood and where she had upto a 25% mortality rate (I’ve heard eestimates as high as 33%) every time she gave birth. Practically every single aspect of that paradigm has been obsolete since the early 20th Century.

In fact it is precisely this very type of gynocentric thinking and the female infantalisation it perpetuates, which gives feminism its roots and continues to feed and facilitate it.

I have no interest in trying to make things equal. Equality before the law and equality of opportunity aren’t about that.

The point is that we don’t need to give men or women special statuses. The answer is freedom. Misandrists have a problem with freedom because they know that men (for the most part) will be able to rise up, but women (for the most part) won’t.

“The problem is that you can never make two different things equal; apples and oranges will always have their separate places. Men should be legally and socially above women, for the simple fact that it’s in our nature to care for and protect women, while women only care for and protect children.”

This is a trad con myth. Women do not in fact care for children that much. They see children as hostages.

“Women only care for children” is a trad con pretext to pander to women, it is the theory trickle down economics applied to protecting children. if men protect women, it will trickle down to children.

Wrong, men need to protect children directly, as they do a far better job than females.

The “opinion” you linked to me says nothing about men being better parents than women. It simply states that children are better off raised in stable intact family units.

Now piss off you disingenuous piece of shit. You are here to post opinions that do not contradict, but reinforce tradcon mindset. Your bold stance against tradcons has turned out to be an empty platitude. Isabel V. Sawhill lists lower income of single mother family as a possible reason why children raised with absent fathers are worse off. Tradcons will just say: “We need stricter alimony laws.” lol

“The “opinion” you linked to me says nothing about men being better parents than women. It simply states that children are better off raised in stable intact family units.”

Here is basic course in logic for you. If you remove fathers from the family unit, and they do worse due to be raised by mothers, that means fathers out perform mothers.

“Now piss off you disingenuous piece of shit. You are here to post opinions that do not contradict, but reinforce tradcon mindset. Your bold stance against tradcons has turned out to be an empty platitude. Isabel V. Sawhill lists lower income of single mother family as a possible reason why children raised with absent fathers are worse off. Tradcons will just say: “We need stricter alimony laws.” lol”

Even single mothers with higher income do worse those, what are you on about?

“Here is basic course in logic for you. If you remove fathers from the family unit, and they do worse due to be raised by mothers, that means fathers out perform mothers.”

No mental case, your illogic is highly flawed. The hypothesis of family unit holding on father’s shoulders is an attractive one, to be sure, but I am still waiting for actual proof, not your bullshit listen and believe based assertions.

“Even single mothers with higher income do worse those, what are you on about?”

If the “opinion” of Isabel V. Sawhill is so creditable in your eyes for you to bring it up here, you must not have missed a passage where she suggested that it might be possible it is not the absense of father that makes single parenthood worse off for children, but the emotional turmoil kids are forced to go through. And unlike you, she even cited some actual research:

In fact, stable single-parent families in which a child does not experience the constant comings and goings of new boyfriends (or girlfriends) or the addition of new half siblings have begun to look like a better environment than “musical” parenthood.[ii]

By the way, this tamerlame guy does not really care about father’s rights, he invades father’s rights just to attract a following. Look at how Felfop deconstructed his rant against random memes on Facebook.

I have a serious question for you. How do you plan to advance your cause if you lack intellectual honesty? You obviously didn’t have proof on hand for the very bold statement about fathers being better parents than mothers. Any sort of such extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence, which continues to be the gold standard in scientific community for several hundred years now. As much as I’d like fathers to be recognized as great parents, I realize that for this idea to be recognized on merit, actual studies must be done to evaluate the performance of fathers compared to mothers.

You must think that “might makes right”, and get very defensive when you encounter skepticism towards your statements, similar to the situation on your discord, where I studied some channel history and noticed outright how you weaseled (NB: I said “weaseled”, not “contradicted”! I suspect you don’t recognize there aren’t only polar opposites, but there exist states in between) with your assertion about what constitutes rape, and trying to be intellectually honest, I asked for clarifications, expecting you to provide some proof and elaboration pertaining to subject. You obviously lacked both, and lashed out against me, to deflect from what was a glaring issue with your statement. You even threatened to dox me, told me you know who I am, even though I mostly lurk around your spaces and there’s no chance you know my real identity if you aren’t NSA.

It’s not like you apply the same standards onto your adversaries in the debate. You constantly lash out against TFM, not unlike StonerWithABoner does against Jagoff Don-0-van, even though TFM is about your level of intellectual dishonesty, he just holds views you don’t like, and that makes him a fair target as far as you’re concerned. For example, TFM never called for weak men to be killed, he just said they are useless to society. You didn’t even ask TFM for clarifications, you jumped straight to accuse him of supporting baby knife rape and wanting to kill weak men. What stops people from doing the same onto you, claiming that you oppose rape only when it’s done to men, and you’re indifferent when it happens to women? Or that you support corporal punishment, since by and large it’s fathers who are designated to deliver physical punishments to their kids?

Seriously, Tamerlame, if you want MRM to succeed, you need to work on your antisocial personality, your style of argumentation, the rigor of your proof. You might have an excuse in form of your shitty childhood, but MRM isn’t a therapy session, and your presence now only serves to further marginalize and discredit MRM.

Antidote, you mentioned TFM? Do not expect an answer from tamerlame, it gives him an opportunity to dismiss your question entirely. But seriously, great post. It is good to see some pushback against him, since obviously he now just invades men’s spaces to troll and recruit subordinates.

By the way, are you a member of the same discord I sometimes come to call tamerlame out on his anti-maleness and inceldom? Good to see some people who are not submissive to him, and do not tolerate his dogmatic, anti-male behavior. I am glad to see not all men still refuse to stand their ground.

How about we join forces to raise awareness about facts inconvenient to him? It will do wonders to destroy his credibility. So that as few men as possible will get conned by him.

“Antidote, you mentioned TFM? Do not expect an answer from tamerlame, it gives him an opportunity to dismiss your question entirely.”

He wasn’t that inclined to a dialogue in the first place, so what if I pointed out how Tamerlame can dish it out but not take it by comparison with TFM?

“By the way, are you a member of the same discord I sometimes come to call tamerlame out on his anti-maleness and inceldom?”

No, waste of my time. He lacks intellectual honesty. That move was done out of desperation. To give him a last chance to redeem himself. But he’s shown his true face.

“So that as few men as possible will get conned by him.”

If we plan to do it, now’s the best time. There’re still people out there thinking he’s for real. His “activism” is a failure, his “ideas” are basically repackaged MGTOW ideas. He’s worthless and a fair target.

The Anti-Masculinist – ”When you start looking at gynocentrism fully and how men fit into that paradigm, you very quickly discover that the model of masculinity….blah, blah, blah, whine, whine, whine”

Sorry, but the reality remains that we men very much value our authentic masculinity (your pathetic attempts to redefine masculinity into nothing not withstanding), which absolutely does include our physicality and our sexuality (even though you join with the radical gender-feminists in decrying male physicality and sexuality – with them calling such natural expressions of our authentic masculinity evil and brutish, you claiming them as enslaving of men – different mischaracterizations leading to the same anti-masculine end goals).

We men also value our abilities to accomplish goals, produce tangible results, and to defend (protect) others (yes, often women) within the individual spheres of our lives.

The vast majority of men in this world do not share your anti-masculine aims. They do not admire you, and they wouldn’t want to be like you. Despite your deep arrogance and narcissism, you are simply NOT the ideal model of what males ought to become. You’re an outlier. There’s nothing wrong with that, you should feel free to do whatever makes you happy. But, you need to get over yourself and realize that you aren’t going to convince other men to follow your lead in eschewing the authentic masculinity that has been gifted to them via the DNA of generations of men before them.

In fact, between your constant screeching that men need to stop acting like men; and your false characterizations of others who disagree, and lies about what others believe and support (yeah, I’m talking about the pack of lies you spewed all over that earlier discussion thread), you come-off looking like a complete world-class asshole. That’s why so many here dislike you so much. We don’t necessarily disagree with the salient truths in your concerns over male disposability, we just see you as an over-the-top whiny asshole who verbally (er, textually) vomits all over anyone who dares to disagree that you are the new Messiah.
You are, of course, free to go your own way, as you see best for you and your desires. But, quit being such a whiny little brat that others would chose to go against feminist-designs and embrace our physical masculinity, and against both feminists and tradscons and embrace our sexual masculinity. Rather than deny who we are, what we are, we simply need to learn and teach others how to avoid the pitfalls which would leave us to be used as disposable (society will continue to view men that way, there’s little that can be done about that). We can well live our lives in ways which allow us to express our masculinity in ways which we enjoy (especially sex with women), and produce, provide, protect and benefit those we chose to do so for.

Now, you can express you r disagreement with me…and as you typically do, claim that your mere disagreement somehow equates to your having proved me wrong.

I’ll just sit back and laugh and your little rant one last time – then I will just ignore anything else you have to say.

[Damned, PMAFT, you need one of those “ignore all” features that could be used to hide all of Andrews posts. It would make for more useful discussions without his incessant ankle-biting tending to derail the good times.]

Which I have never actually disputed. I’ve simply criticised doing that for the purposes of being a provider and protector and argued that the sole primary reason for doing so should be self-actualisation devoid of male disposability.

“The vast majority of men in this world do not share your anti-masculine aims.”

Yes and between the way men are screwed over by the family courts, false rape allegations and primary aggressor laws, just to name a few examples off the top of my head, that paradigm of masculinity has done nothing but fuck men over (and the lower on the rung a man was/is, the more it fucks him over) since the dawn of civilisation.

Seriously,stop pretending you’re anything other than a feminist enabler like every single other tradcon out there.

slwerner wrote:[Damned, PMAFT, you need one of those “ignore all” features that could be used to hide all of Andrews posts.

I haven’t read a single one of his posts since my last response to him. They’re so damn long my eyes glaze over, so it’s not that hard to do. Since I’ve determined that he has nothing relevant to say, I will continue to not read anything he writes.

It would make for more useful discussions without his incessant ankle-biting tending to derail the good times.]

In the Usenet era there were newsreaders and killfiles. Now there’s a way to do it with at least some blogs through Greasemonkey. Not sure it would work here, but it’s worth a shot.

Oh and btw, great job at ironically making this post in a blog entry criticising you and your ilk for being feminist enablers and proving it right. Seriously that kind of sheer brain farting makes Forest Gump look like Stephen Hawking in comparison.

Here’s the code, which has just been tested for Firefox 12 with GreaseMonkey 0.9.22 . Right now it’s Andrew-specific but setting up a list of trolls should be doable. I’ve also created a script for The Spearhead, but the code looks quite different from PMAFT’s site.

@ all the tradcons who are so doubly ignorant that they can’t see that this blog post by PMAFT was one great big shot at them.

Go ahead and run away from the inconvenient truth. After all, nothing says spineless cowards in denial like a pack of closet feminist enablers who, like the cockroaches they are, scurry from the truth because it’s too inconvenient for them.

But hey, you tradcons go on being good little feminist enabling performing seals, waiting for your next reward of sex in the same way a performing seal waits for their next fish (willfully oblivious to the fact that this last post by PMAFT was actually criticising you) and you PUAs keep on acting like parasites and perpetuating feminism at $1500+ a seminar – all while not giving a flying fuck about any man other than yourself.

Stop pretending you’re men or that you’re even remotely a friend to men, when you’re nothing but sex-addicted, scared little boys.

And the blog post by PMAFT is proven correct once again, by sharing this poorly thought out piece of misandrist social psychology.

This piece isn’t just an indirect shot at me, but a shot at great men like the late Earl Silverman who died taking the same stance I have.

Even if you take this study on face value and ignore the one caveat every single piece of social psychology has (ie that it is always one exceptional case away from being debunked); all you have proven is how gynocentric misandry is alive and well and that there are many of PMAFT’s readers, including yourselves who are tradcons and therefore feminist enablers – who are exactly the group PMAFT’s blog entry here criticises.

Your entire anachronistic argument might even be valid if it weren’t for the fact that it flew in the face of about every single fundamental tenant of an advancing society.

Daryl X on the spearhead put it best in a discussion we were having:

“Kudos on confirming that gynocentrism has always existed. I agree. It’s a default and primitive disposition of our social organizing which is imprinted upon our DNA. It is anathema to civilization and must be fought constantly to maintain civilization, the fundamentals of law and fair treatment of everyone, the advancement of science and understanding of the world around us (meaning that women are not the constant center of the universe all the time and that there is a reality beyond them). Early Greek scholars, authors of the Bible and Quoran, forefathers of the US, authors of the US Constitution, and many scholars since recognize this fact and have written about it, drafted legislation around it, etc… The maintenance and advancement of civilization requires the complete utter elimination of feminism.”

Ironically all you have proven here is that deep down, right wingers like yourself deeply value the same level of society that the green left do – the “might=right” paradigm is the fundamental basis of a pre-industrial society. Both you and they would have us abandon this modern world – the only difference is that where they would have us hanging from trees, you and your ilk would have us in caves.

In such a society, where child and maternal mortality rates are a significant issue, and life expectancies are low because of it; where jobs which are significantly safer today would be far more hazardous, you and your ilk would thrive. You define yourself by this society and the fact is that any challenge to this paradigm terrifies you and your ilk deep down, because beyond your utility, you have no idea who you are.

The fact is that brawn has always been what has defined male utility; intellect is what defines male humanity. The greatest men in history – Socrates, Galileo, DaVinci, Archimedes, Newton, the Wright brothers, Pythagoras, Tesla, Einstein, Edison, Bell, Hawking, to name a few – all gave us amazing contributions to science and technology which stemmed entirely from their intellects rather than their brawn. Without these men, we would still be living like it’s 299BC.

Yet apparently, looking to these men, who advanced society in ways which went beyond their own selfish sphere’s of gynocentric glory, they are somehow anti-masculine, and should be shamed. This is the typical “dumb jock” response to men showing intelligence and engaging in higher reasoning, including abstract thought.

Heck, Socrates is a brilliant example of a man who rejected gynocentrism (in fact the state hated him and put him to death) and yet left a legacy which is almost immeasurable in its scale and scope, yet fails on the gynocentric scale of measuring a man by his ability to provide, protect and his sexual prowess. But then that’s the irony. Alexander the Great left nothing but a mountain of corpses behind; Bell and Edison, through the invention of the telephone, have saved millions of lives through the benefits of telecommunications and will only continue to as time goes on.

Yet apparently men who reflect on the human condition, on the nature of the universe, on gaining understandings which benefit ALL mankind, aren’t “real men” compared to some rich jock who is only interested in the advancement of his immediate circle.

But then it’s this same group which CLAIMS to support small business on one hand, whilst supporting and lobbying governmentts for a “free market” – one where they can use predatory practices (eg predatory pricing) to wipe out small business and consolidate wealth for themselves and their corporate – mates as opposed to having a system which encouraged small business, protected it from corporate predators and fostered genuine competition. But apparently not supporting this view, a view which is actually pro-captialism, makes you a socialist (ie “communist”).

Slwerner, much like mackPUA and Ray Manta, you are no friend to men and you every bit as culpable in Earl’s death as NOW and the Canadian govt are. Heck men like you are the reason feminism grew and continues to flourish. Your opposition to feminism goes only so far as to return society to what it used to be in the worst way possible and is in no way concerned with the injustices against men or the rampant misandry in society.

For that matter, why don’t you just do away with the pretense and join NOW – you clearly support the paradigm of masculinity they operate from and the female infantalisation which has allowed feminism to perpetuate with complete impunity in society.

The alphas that most women choose to share or get kids by,
really want the beta guys to man up.
This is because, if the beta guy doesn’t show up,
Mr. Alpha may have to pay up,
while Ms. Empowered Womyn will have to be around a guy she only wanted at her most attractive … that has other options.
Alpha men and promiscuous women need beta guys … more than the beta guys need them.
The heart of most PUA-ism is how to engage sluts on their terms.
You aren’t “stealing” her away from another guy, she is choosing to be with you after the guy she really wants for the good times … isn’t hanging around when he has better options.

Two problems there. First off, at a conceptual level, most men haven’t even realised how their sex drives are manipulated by social engineering, let alone reclaimed their sexuality on their terms.

The key litmus test is whether a guy has reclaimed his sexuality are whether he values his sexuality as having a deeper connection than simply “getting off” (remember that sex is always being at your most intimate with someone and therefore giving of yourself in a profound way); whether he is aware that he is allowed to turn down a woman for sex.

If a man has reached that point, then and only then, is he sexually liberated, as he and not society, is in control of his sexuality.

However as you put it here, when you said

“The heart of most PUA-ism is how to engage sluts on their terms.”

The PUA version of male sexuality still is about providing for women – admittedly it’s capitalisation – but it’s still about a man giving of himself to service a woman’s female infantalisation (a heavily promiscuous women is the sexual equivalent of Veruca Salt). The reward of course is yet another sexual notch on the belt and therefore yet another ultimately hollow advancement of status under the toxic paradigm of disposable masculinity.

That’s the thing – male disposability reduces men to the equivalent of performing seals – except it’s sex instead of a fish, which is the reward.

Secondly, that pragmatically falls apart the moment something goes wrong. All it takes is one busted condom and one woman really looking for a sperm donor and lying about her intentions and a guy is screwed. These days all it takes is a court ordered DNA test and a guy is screwed over by 18 years of child support and family court abuse. Before that it was social shaming and shotgun weddings that a man was exposed to when things went wrong on that front.

I understand that PUAs THINK they’re beating the system, but when you actually look deeply enough at how the system is constructed, you simply see they’re not only playing ball with it completely, but actually reducing themselves to the masculinity proposed by the likes of Valerie Solanas, where men are reduced to nothing more than breeding stock.

Here’s my take on it:
Women want equality when it benefits them.
When it doesn’t, they want chivalry.
Of course, men are to blame regardless of how the woman’s life turns out because of choices she made of her own free will. Since fate, responsibility and hard work are the patriarchy trying to keep women down.
Everyone knows that all men enjoy a lifetime of sex for free and do not work (see contradiction above).

“Everyone knows that all men enjoy a lifetime of sex for free and do not work (see contradiction above).”

Ultimately the problem is that gynocentrism manipulated both the male and female sex drives. Because the value of the womb trumped male and female humanity and because eugenics played such a huge part in the reproductive process for society; female sexuality was maniulated in a way that if women openly acknowledged their sexual urges, they were shamed as abnormal. Conversely, if men ever dares deviate from a hypersexualised version of their natural sexuality by daring to make their sexual activity conditional rather than automatic, then they are shamed as abnormal.

Feminism does try and argue for a reversal of this, but their position is utterly flawed as it presumes that our current state is not only natural and to be taken on face value (ie “rape culture” and “the patriachy”). So the feminist approach merely compounds the existing problem but adds even more dehumanisation into the mix – by teaching women to devalue their sexuality in the way men have been taught to and by shaming men for a state that is a social manipulation to begin with.

“Women want equality when it benefits them.
When it doesn’t, they want chivalry.
Of course, men are to blame regardless of how the woman’s life turns out because of choices she made of her own free will. Since fate, responsibility and hard work are the patriarchy trying to keep women down.”

Yes and the reason women want this and why feminists want an exaggeration of this is the same reason the tradcon and game communities want things to be “the way they were” in one or more regards – Stockholm Syndrome.

The fact is that we as a society, have been conditioned to view male disposability and female infantalisation as both a good thing and something glorious – to the point where men and women will militantly fight to maintain their aspect of the status quo – women with female infantalisation and men with male disposability.

Those who stand opposed to this are a stark minority in the world, and out of those, there are many who have eyes, but are either unable to see, or willfully refuse to see.

Women need to learn that accountability and agency empower them far more than any gynocentric paradigm ever could. Likewise, men need to learn who they truly are, to value and love themselves for who they are rather than what kind of protector and provider they are, that if they don’t feel like doing it then that’s a perfectly acceptable option and that being human means having vulnerabilities that in no way makes them less of a man.

However analogous to the scene in the Matrix with woman in the red dress, many people out there do not want to be “unplugged” from their social conditioning – with 3 examples of that in this comments section alone.

“Wow, seriously who knew manginas who support men existed !!! But really dont support men

Typical mangina’s, just as batshit un-logical as the women …”

They’re called tradcons and PUAs. Take a look in the mirror and you should be easily able to spot one.

After all you PUAs are so addicted to vagina that you’re quite happy to subject men on this planet to continued gynocentric slavery and subject male survivors of abuse to the fates of either a nervous breakdown or suicide and destitute men to a subhuman existence for how ever long they manage to live for from that point onwards.

But then that’s the difference between tradcons/PUAs and MRAs. Tradcons/PUAs only care about the status of men as it affects them personally based on their personal urges and desires for self-advancement. MRAs care about the status of ALL men and what will actually be of the greatest benefit to ALL men, regardless of their social status.

[…] As he and others point out, the message from them doesn’t seem any different. From the old TWRA site to other voices such as Suzanne Venker, the message comes out that women need to preserve their “special rights” they have over and above men, inherent to chivalry. Hence, the lack of rights for men, and the lack of responsibilities for women. While the traditionalists do not identify with the Marxists, they are defending their own system of female supremacy, coupled with the delusion that men were “in charge” of marriage. Hence, they will side with each other when abortion isn’t on the table. The traditionalists know well to not upset the female-supremacist apple cart. […]

Equality will benefit both men and women. The only difference is that it will benefit men immediately, and benefit women over the course of a few centuries.

The only reason that women have not evolved to be fit to compete with men, is because they’ve never had to compete with men, at least not on a fair playing ground.
However, if the environment becomes such that women have to compete with men on a fair playing ground, then they as a sex will adapt to do so.

Evolution is simply response to the surrounding environment. If women’s surrounding environment changes, they will change as well.

Unless there is a sudden, catastrophic environmental change (like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs), adaptation is doable, especially for complex species such as humans.

So, in my view, equality can only benefit both human sexes in the long term. It frees men from unjust laws, and it forces women to rise to the same level as men if they are to make it. Freedom for men, improvement for women. Win win.

Although I have no qualms with the idea of equality, I do see a lot of problems with how realistic achieving it would be…but that’s another topic.